Posted
by
Soulskill
on Wednesday October 10, 2012 @05:50PM
from the not-for-cooking-meth dept.

SchrodingerZ writes "Two Americans have won the 2012 Nobel prize in Chemistry for their work in cell research. Their work involves the discovery and manipulation of the G-protein-coupled receptors, which detect signals outside the of cells they inhabit. 'The human body has about 1,000 kinds of such receptors, which enable it to respond to a wide variety of chemical signals, like adrenaline. Some receptors are in the nose, tongue and eyes, and let us sense smells, tastes and vision.' The winners are Robert J. Lefkowitz and Brian K. Kobilka. Lefkowitz works at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and is a professor at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina. Kobilka is a professor at Stanford University School of Medicine in California. Their research has helped create newer and more effective drugs with fewer side effects. More on G Protein-coupled Receptor research can be found in the Journal of Biological Chemistry."

well Mr. KKK, let's try this from a different angle. Jews are also a blight and net drain on society according to your doctrine, yes? How do you account for the large number of Jews winning Nobel prizes?

Well. That was an unfortunate first post. But disregarding that, these two were long past due on earning the Nobel for this work. It has been the foundation for nearly 30% of all therapeutic pharmaceuticals worldwide. I've had the opportunity to meet and work with those trained by Lefkowitz and his impact in the sciences, and in particular pharmacology, will be felt for generations.

More than just that, the mechanisms implicated in intercellular communication are involved in a great many areas, including new and novel approaches to regenerative medicine such as stem cell treatments, and in emerging fields like biotechnology.

Kobilka was hardly "long past due" - he isn't getting the prize for his work with Lefkowitz, he's getting it for the first structure of the beta-adrenergic receptor (and more generally, for figuring out how to make GPCR crystallization feasible), which was only in 2007, and especially for the structure of the GPCR:G-protein complex which was just published last year [nih.gov]. Quite a few people expected that to seal the deal, but this is a relatively quick prize.

The committee wouldn't award the same individuals for the same work in two different disciplines.

They were given the Chemistry Nobel because the chief effort and original determination of the existence of these receptors was a chemistry-heavy endeavor. We call it "Biochemistry", but really it's just the application of precise and exhaustive principles of chemistry to a biological system.

Even now, most of the individuals working to understand these receptors are chiefly chemists and biochemists. First

I'm a biochemist and crystallographer by training, so I don't mind that they won the chemistry prize for this... but I have to admit, this fits a lot better with the "physiology or medicine" category. Still, no one has ever turned down a Nobel prize because they won it in the wrong category.

Don't complain. Rutherford won the Chemistry prize for basically discovering nuclear physics. He was annoyed that he would forever be labeled a chemist.

When the fields overlap the Nobel Committee can basically pick whichever one is more convenient for the year.

Nuclear physics or nuclear chemistry? [wikipedia.org]. It can be hard to apply the labels of modern scientific disciplines to past research. Faraday [wikipedia.org] was a chemist by today's definition, but was probably just considered a "scientist" in his day because he was really discovering some of the underpinnings of what would become modern chemistry. Linus Pauling [nobelprize.org] studied under Schrodinger and Bohr and much of his work is easily classifiable as physics (but he considered himself a chemist). Much of the evolution of Chemistry into a

You know, I can see that the research subject could be news for nerds and matter, but why does the headline simply state the nationality of the scientists who won a Nobel Prize instead of saying anything, well, important or interesting?

Sadly, there seems to be this irrational need by many people to ascribe greatness to a group by vicariously claiming a portion of the grandeur by association.

Eg, because they were American scientists, this makes America greater, and by association, americans greater.

Nevermind that this innately divisive, unnecessary, unwarranted, stupid, and wasteful. It makes people completely unrelated to the subject matter, ans who do not comprehend the implication of the awarded science behind the award, to feel good about themselves, by excluding others.

The reality is that it should not and does not matter which country the scientists who undertook this work were from. The work benefits all of mankind as a whole, which is exactly why a nobel prize could be awarded.

Needless to say, I find the rationale behind the sensationalism concerning nationality in the announcement to be offensive, and I happen to be an american.

Maybe if Americans identified a little more taxpayer funding would pour into research and science education would be encouraged on every level until America won at science! Group pride is a little silly, but if the country produced zero scientific discoveries group shame would surely be justified.

Wow..you are right. The way they are listed is misleading as hell. They are listed for China because they were born there but credited as being an American or British scientist when they got their Nobel..

You know, I can see that the research subject could be news for nerds and matter, but why does the headline simply state the nationality of the scientists who won a Nobel Prize instead of saying anything, well, important or interesting?

I think it is news that they are Americans, and I find it interesting.

I mean, we've been stripping basic research funding to the bone, and then some. Many of our politicians don't really see any benefit since "We need to balance the budget, and it has to start somewhere." has become the mantra for cutting things that are politically easy to cut.

Granted, these guys aren't doing this research now, and it has become fundamental, but it's probably not going to be very long before seeing an American win a No

we've been stripping basic research funding to the bone, and then some.

I'm a biochemist working for the US federal government, and this is not very accurate.

What really happened was that the NIH budget grew explosively in the late 90s and early 00s, along with the government encouraging the training of new PhD students. This produced a glut of junior scientists, and the expectation that funding would continue to rise. When the economy tanked and the fiscal situation became more difficult (and Congress sta